With his long awaited entry into the presidential campaign,
former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson says that he will base his
campaign on the “first principles” of “individual freedom and
limited government.” If he follows through, he will have an
opportunity to position himself as the only small-government
conservative in the race.
As I wrote in my book, Leviathan on the Right,
Republicans have been increasingly split between traditional
small-government conservatives in the Reagan and Goldwater molds
and a new breed of big-government conservatives who believe in
using an activist government to achieve conservative ends — even
if it means increasing the size, cost, and power of government in
the process.
The difference in the two camps is as clear as the difference
between Ronald Reagan, who said “Government is not the solution to
our problem; government is the problem,” and George W. Bush, who
said, “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts,
government has got to move.”
Bush’s brand of big-government conservatism brought us No Child
Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a 23
percent increase in domestic discretionary spending. It may well
have cost Republicans control of Congress. After all, on election
night 2006, 55 percent of voters said that they thought the
Republican Party was the party of big government. Now, the
Republican primary campaign raises the question of whether the
party will continue down the Bush path or return to its
Reagan-Goldwater roots.
Most of the current candidates fall squarely into the
big-government camp. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney
imposed a Hillary Clinton style health plan in his state and not
only supports No Child Left Behind, but calls for the federal
government to buy a laptop computer for every child born in
America. John McCain has an admirable record as a fiscal
conservative, but he has shown a disturbing predilection for making
a federal issue of making every personal pet peeve, from steroids
in baseball to airplane service quality. He has embraced heavily
regulatory environmental policies and compulsory national service.
More important, he is the principal author of a campaign finance
bill that severely restricts political speech. And as anyone from
Michael Milken to Amadou Diallo can tell you, Rudy Giuliani’s
record on civil liberties can only be described as abysmal.
Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for
small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second
coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, a look at his record
shows that he has generally supported limited government.
During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid
record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives
him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Reps.
Ron Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo). He generally shared McCain’s
opposition to pork barrel spending and earmarks, and voted against
the 2002 farm bill. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and has
generally been solid in support of tax reduction. He has
consistently supported entitlement reform, voting to means-test
Medicare and supporting personal accounts for Social Security.
On federalism, there may be no better candidate. His Senate
record is replete with examples of his being the lone opponent of
legislation that he thought undercut federalist principles. He took
this position even on legislation that was otherwise supported by
conservatives. He opposes federal action to prohibit gay marriage
on federalist grounds, although he supports state bans. One blight
on this record is his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind, but he
now says he opposes increased federal involvement in education.
On the other hand, he supported McCain-Feingold, although he has
now backed away from that position as well, suggesting the law has
been overtaken by events. He now says that he is willing to
consider scrapping campaign finance restrictions in favor of full
disclosure. And his position on civil liberties generally is
troubling. He supported the anti-flag burning constitutional
amendment and expansion of federal police powers generally. So far
he has given no suggestion that he breaks with the Bush
administration on important issues like habeas corpus, torture, and
surveillance.
On foreign policy he has been a hawk, and supports continuing
the war in Iraq. Thompson also appears to take the neoconservative
line on Iran, North Korea, and China. It’s hard to be a
small-government conservative while favoring more widespread
military intervention. War is a big-government
program.
Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has
enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues.
Now that he is in the race, he’ll have to be much more specific
about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and
Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an
opportunity to seize the small-government mantle. If he does, it
could lead to a very interesting campaign.
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare
studies at the Cato Institute.
